Abetment penalty fails where the principal contravention was not proved on the same evidence.

Penalty for alleged abetment of a foreign exchange contravention could not be sustained where the principal accused had already been exonerated on the same documents and evidence. Once the finding that the underlying violation was not proved had attained finality, the same material could not be relied on to establish that the appellant aided and abetted the supposed breach. The HC held that the Tribunal's conclusion treating the appellant's charge as proved was unsustainable, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained against a person alleged to have aided and abetted the main accused when the main accused had already been exonerated on the same material and the finding had attained finality.

Analysis: The appellant was proceeded against for an alleged violation of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the footing that he had aided and abetted the main accused. The main accused had already been held not guilty on the very documents and evidence relied upon in the appellant's case. Once the finding that the underlying violation itself was not proved had attained finality, the same set of material could not be used to hold that the appellant had abetted a violation. In such circumstances, the Tribunal's conclusion that the charge against the appellant stood proved could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant was unsustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the principal contravention is held not proved on the same evidence, an alleged abettor cannot be penalised on that very material for the same supposed violation.

---